- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jaipur Development Authority v. Kailashwati Devi (Smt) .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a civil suit challenging certain land acquisition proceedings and sought a permanent injunction on the basis of continued possession. The Jaipur Development Authority (appellant) was later impleaded as a defendant. The suit was decreed ex parte. In the ensuing first appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, the appellant sought to introduce two documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to demonstrate that possession had long ago been taken from the plaintiff. The High Court rejected this application, holding that a party who had led no evidence at trial could not seek to file “additional” evidence on appeal. Relying on Gauhati High Court precedent, the High Court dismissed the application, prompting the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the term “additional” in Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC bars a party from producing evidence in the appellate court if that party had led no evidence in the trial court.
- Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s application for admission of additional evidence solely on that ground.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam, AIR 1985 Gau 107 | Held that “additional” evidence may be received only where the party had already adduced some evidence in the trial court. | Expressly disapproved; the Supreme Court held that this interpretation improperly adds a restriction not found in Order 41 Rule 27. |
| Gurbakhsh Singh v. Shankar Das Sadhu Ram, AIR 1936 Lah 71 | Advocated a similar restrictive reading of Order 41 Rule 27 regarding parties that adduced no evidence at trial. | Also disapproved for the same reasons. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the text of Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC, emphasizing that the clause permits additional evidence in the appellate court when, despite due diligence, the evidence was neither within the party’s knowledge nor capable of being produced at trial. The Court found no textual basis for inserting a further prerequisite that the party must have adduced some evidence in the trial court. Introducing such a condition, it held, would amount to judicial legislation. Accordingly, the restrictive interpretations adopted by the Gauhati and Lahore High Courts were declared incorrect. The sole determinants remain the “due diligence” requirements expressly set out in the rule.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; High Court judgment set aside.
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s preliminary objection, directing the High Court to consider the appellant’s application for additional evidence on its merits. The decision clarifies that parties who failed to present any evidence at trial may still invoke Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(aa) CPC, provided they satisfy the statutory “due diligence” criteria. No broader precedent was set beyond this interpretive clarification.
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.— Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal has been preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B Civil First Appeal No. 19 of 1995 dated 10-12-1996. By that judgment, the High Court rejected an application filed by the appellant for leading “additional evidence” under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, in a pending first appeal on the ground that the appellant had not led any evidence in the trial court. The Court took the above view following a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Mohd. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam AIR 1985 Gau 107 to the effect that the word “additional” in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC meant the “joining or uniting one thing to another so as to form one aggregate” and that a party was disentitled to produce any additional evidence if he had not produced any evidence in the trial court.
3. The facts are as follows:
The suit was filed by the respondent questioning certain land acquisition proceedings and seeking permanent injunction on the basis that the plaintiff was in possession. The appellant got impleaded in the trial court as a defendant. The suit was decreed ex parte. Appeal was preferred by the appellant to the High Court and two documents were sought to be filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 to show that possession was taken over from the plaintiff long back. This application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the appellant-defendant had not adduced any evidence in the trial court. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal.
4. We are of the view that the interpretation put in by the High Court of Rajasthan and the High Court of Gauhati on the word “additional” in clause (aa) of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not correct.
5. The provisions of Rule 27 of Order 41 insofar as they are relevant read as follows:
“27. Production of additional evidence in appellate court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court. But if—
(a) ***
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) ***
the appellate court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. The intention of the sub-rule, in our view, is that a party who, for the reasons mentioned in the sub-clause, was unable to produce the evidence in the trial court, should be enabled to produce the same in the appellate court. The sub-rule mentions the conditions which must be complied with by the party producing the additional evidence, namely, that “notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him” in the trial court. It is not one of the conditions that the party seeking to introduce additional evidence must have also been one who has led some evidence in the trial court. Such a view amounts to introducing an additional condition not contemplated by the sub-rule. No distinction was intended by the sub-rule between a party who has produced some evidence in the trial court and one who has adduced no evidence in the trial court. All that is required is that the conditions mentioned in the body of the sub-rule must be proved to exist. It is not permissible to restrict clause (aa) for the benefit of only those who have adduced some evidence in the trial court.
7. The view taken by the Gauhati High Court is not therefore correct. A similar view taken by the Lahore High Court in Gurbakhsh Singh v. Shankar Das Sadhu Ram AIR 1936 Lah 71 is also not correct.
8. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the objection to the maintainability of the application is overruled. It will now be for the High Court to examine the application of the appellant on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert